Rene Sebastian Friesen Froese

This Opinion Is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: February 10, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Rene Sebastian Friessen Froese
_____
Serial No. 98217661
_____
Miguel Villarreal, Jr., of Gunn, Lee & Cave, P.C., for Rene Sebastian Friesen
Froese.
Caitlin Watts-Fitzgerald, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 111,
Chris Doninger, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Wellington, Thurmon and O’Connor, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Thurmon, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Rene Sebastian Friesen Froese (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark FORTEX MFG, in standard characters with “MFG” disclaimed,
for “Custom manufacture of vehicles, vehicle parts, and metallic structures in the
nature of power trains, dollies, and storage containers,” in International Class 40,
and “Engineering of vehicles, vehicle parts, and metallic structures in the nature of
power trains, dollies, and storage containers; Industrial design of vehicles, vehicle

Serial No. 98217661
- 2 -
parts, and metallic structures in the nature of power trains, dollies, and storage
containers,” in International Class 42.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney issued a final refusal of registration under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), finding a likelihood of
confusion, based on two registered marks owned by the same entity. One cited
Registration is for the mark FORTEC, in standard characters, for “Automobile
customization, modification, and accessory installation services,” in International
Class 37,2 and the second cited Registration is for the mark shown below for
“Automobile customization services,” in International Class 37:
.3
The appeal is fully briefed and ready for final decision. We affirm the refusal to
register.
1 Application Serial No. 98217661 was filed on October 10, 2023, under Section 1(b) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), alleging a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.
2 Registration No. 3122646, issued August 1, 2006, renewed.
3 Registration No. 3183769, issued December 12, 2006, renewed. The mark is described as
follows: “The mark consists of the word FORTEC in stylized lettering. The letters F, R, T, E,
and C in FORTEC are white with silver outlines and then a thin black outline. The letter O
in FORTEC is formed from a rectangular red design with a white outline superimposed over
an X in the same lettering style as the rest of the mark.” The colors red, black, silver and
white are claimed as a feature of the mark.

Serial No. 98217661
- 3 -
Section 2(d) – Applicable Law
Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative evidence of record bearing on a likelihood of confusion. In re E. I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (“DuPont”), cited in B&B
Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015); see also In re Majestic
Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We must consider each DuPont
factor for which there is evidence and argument. See, e.g., In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912
F.3d 1376, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Whether a likelihood of confusion exists between
an applicant’s mark and a previously registered mark is determined on a case-by-case
basis, aided by application of the thirteen DuPont factors.” Omaha Steaks Int’l, Inc.
v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2018). When analyzing
these factors, the overriding concerns are not only to prevent buyer confusion as to
the source of the goods or services, but also to protect the registrant from adverse
commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer. See In re Shell Oil
Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Each case must be decided on its own facts and the differences are often subtle
ones.” Indus. Nucleonics Corp. v. Hinde, 475 F.2d 1197, 1199 (CCPA 1973). Varying
weights may be assigned to each DuPont factor depending on the evidence presented.
See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp. Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Shell Oil, 992 F.2d at 1206 (“the various evidentiary factors may play more or less
weighty roles in any particular determination”). In any likelihood of confusion
analysis, two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the

Serial No. 98217661
- 4 -
similarities between the goods or services. See In re i.am.symbolic, LLC, 866 F.3d
1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d
1156, 1164-65 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); In re Chatam Int’l Inc., 380 F.3d 1340, 1342 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co., 544 F.2d 1098, 1103
(CCPA 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by § 2(d) goes to the cumulative
effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the goods and differences in the
marks.”).
Likelihood of Confusion – Analysis
Applicant and the Trademark Examining Attorney presented arguments under
DuPont factors one, two, three, four and six. We address these factors in turn below.
We limit our analysis to the cited word mark FORTEC, because it is more similar
to the applied-for mark than the cited composite mark.
A. Similarity of the Marks
To evaluate the similarity of the marks under the first DuPont factor, we consider
the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial
impression. See, e.g., Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison
Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371 (citing DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361). “Similarity
in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.”
In re Inn at St. John’s LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 170, *13 (quoting In re
Davia, No. 85497617, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 214, *4, aff’d mem., 777 F. App’x 516 (Fed.
Cir. 2019); accord Krim-Ko Corp. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 390 F.2d 728, 732 (CCPA

Serial No. 98217661
- 5 -
1968) (“It is sufficient if the similarity in either form, spelling or sound alone is likely
to cause confusion.”) (citation omitted).
“The proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead
whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression
such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection
between the parties.” Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning, LLC, 668 F.3d 1356,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who
normally “retains a general rather than a specific impression of marks.” In re
i.am.symbolic, llc, No. 85916778, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 281, *11.
The marks, FORTEC and FORTEX MFG are similar in appearance. The first term
in the applied-for mark is dominant, partly because it is the first term in the mark,
and also because MFG is an abbreviation for “manufacturing,” which is included in
the services identified in the Application.4 This term, therefore, is descriptive or
generic as to some of Applicant’s services and has been disclaimed, and consumers,
therefore, are not likely to rely on this term to distinguish Applicant’s services from
those of others.5 It is clear that FORTEX is the dominant and sole distinctive element
of the applied-for mark.
Both words have six letters and the first five letters of each word are identical.
This creates a similar appearance that is likely to lead consumers to mistake one
mark for the other. The added MFG in the applied-for mark creates only a minor
4 Office Action dated June 4, 2024, at 4-5, 77.
5 The MFG portion of the applied-for mark was disclaimed.

Serial No. 98217661
- 6 -
visual distinction, given that the word “manufacturing” is not distinctive for
Applicant’s services. The visual similarity of the marks creates a likelihood of
confusion.
The marks also sound similar. The “x” sound at the end of FORTEX sounds similar
to the “c” sound at the end of the cited mark. These letters do not sound identical, but
they are similar. And, as the Trademark Examining Attorney noted, if consumers use
a plural or possessive version of the cited mark (Fortecs or Fortec’s), the marks will
sound identical. But even without this variation on the cited mark, we find these
marks are similar in sound.
When the entire applied-for mark is spoken, the “MFG” element creates a
difference in sound from the cited mark. But consumers often shorten marks,
particularly when a later part of the mark merely describes something about the
goods or services, as is true here. When the applied-for mark is shortened to FORTEX,
it sounds similar to the cited mark, and this fact also increases the likelihood of
confusion.
Applicant argues that the marks sound different because consumers will speak
out the letters “M”, “F” and “G”.6 There is no evidence to support this argument, and
we find it at least as likely that consumers will say “manufacturing” for the MFG part
of the applied-for mark. But more importantly, and as we noted above, consumers are
likely to shorten the applied-for mark to FORTEX, which sounds similar to FORTEC.
The fact that these words end in a different letter means the words can be pronounced
6 6 TTABVUE 6.

Serial No. 98217661
- 7 -
differently, a point Applicant makes.7 But the fact that two words can be
distinguished when carefully pronounced does not mean the words are not similar.
The question is whether consumers who have a somewhat vague recollection of the
cited FORTEC mark will find it similar in sound to the word FORTEX. We believe
consumers will find these marks similar in sound, despite the arguments to the
contrary made by Applicant.
There is no evidence showing that “Fortec” or “Fortex” have any established
meaning within the relevant field, though Applicant argues that the “tex” part of the
applied-for mark refers to Texas, the state in which Applicant is located.8 Without
evidence showing that consumers connect the “tex” in the applied-for mark to the
State of Texas, we cannot make any finding as to the meaning of the marks.
We find the commercial impression created by these marks is similar. The marks
conjure up notions of technology or manufacturing. These are similar impressions
and this similarity also increases the likelihood of confusion. In summary, we find
the marks are similar in appearance, sound and commercial impression. The first
DuPont factor supports the Section 2(d) refusal.
B. Similarity or Relatedness of the Services
We evaluate the second DuPont factor based on the services identified in the
Application and the cited Registration. See Stone Lion Cap. Partners, LP v. Lion Cap.
LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Octocom Sys., Inc. v. Hous. Comput. Servs.
7 Id. at 6-7.
8 9 TTABVUE 6 (Applicant’s reply brief).

Serial No. 98217661
- 8 -
Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is sufficient for a finding of likelihood of
confusion as to a class of services in the Application if relatedness is established
between any of the services identified in that class and the cited Registration. Tuxedo
Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336 (CCPA 1981); see also
Double Coin Holdings Ltd. v. Tru Dev., No. 92063808, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 347, *18;
In re Aquamar, Inc., No. 85861533, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 178, *9 n.5. In addition, the
services need only be sufficiently related that a relevant consumer would be likely to
assume, upon encountering services marketed under the marks at issue, that the
services originate from, are sponsored or authorized by, or are otherwise connected
to the same source. See Black & Decker Corp. v. Emerson Elec. Co., Nos. 91158891
and 91158941, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 50, *25-26.
The cited Registration identifies “Automobile customization, modification, and
accessory installation services,” in International Class 37, while the Application
identifies services in classes 40 and 42. We will compare the services from each class
in the Application to the services identified in the cited Registration.
Applicant mistakenly argues that because some of the services in the Application
are different from the services in the cited Registration, this factor does not support
the refusal.9 That is an incorrect application of the law governing our likelihood of
confusion analysis. As noted above, it is enough if any of the services identified in
each class of services in the Application are similar or related to the services
identified in the cited Registration.
9 6 TTABVUE 9-10.

Serial No. 98217661
- 9 -
1. The International Class 40 Services
The Application identifies the following services in International Class 40:
“Custom manufacture of vehicles, vehicle parts, and metallic structures in the nature
of power trains, dollies, and storage containers.” The cited Registration identifies
“Automobile customization, modification, and accessory installation services,” in
International Class 37. We interpret the identification in the Application to mean
that the phrase “in the nature of power trains, dollies, and storage containers,”
modifies only the term “metallic structures,” and does not modify the terms “vehicles”
or “vehicle parts.” This interpretation makes sense and is consistent with the
arguments Applicant presented during the prosecution and appeal of the Application.
To read the modifying phrase as applicable to all three of the distinct items previously
recited in the identification would effectively exclude “vehicles” from the
identification, because “power trains, dollies and storage containers” are not vehicles.
We apply a similar construction to the International Class 42 services discussed in
the following section of this decision.
Despite the fact that these services are identified in different classes, we find the
services are similar. Applicant’s services involving custom manufacture of vehicles
and vehicle parts include the custom manufacture of automobiles and automobile
parts, because automobiles are a type of vehicle. The services of Applicant and
Registrant therefore can involve the same goods (automobiles) as well as similar
purposes (obtaining a customized automobile). Indeed, the services can directly
overlap. For example, when an automobile is customized, different, altered parts may
be used with the vehicle. Those customized parts must be obtained, which may be

Serial No. 98217661
- 10 -
through custom manufacturing. Thus, there is a clear connection between the
“custom manufactu[ing] of … vehicle parts” services identified in the Application and
the “customization” services in the cited Registration. These services are closely
related and complementary.
But does that mean that consumers are accustomed to seeing both services—the
custom manufacture of automobile parts and the installation of those parts—offered
by a single party? The Trademark Examining Attorney submitted evidence showing
third parties that provide both the manufacturing of custom parts and the
installation of such parts under a single trademark.
One third party, for example, JK Automotive Designs, focuses on car audio
systems and custom upholstery.10 JK Automotive Designs will design and fabricate
custom speaker enclosures and then install those enclosures in a customer’s vehicle.11
In addition, they make custom upholstery, including seats, dashboards and
convertible tops and install these customized parts on customers’ vehicles.12 In short,
JK Automotive Designs provides custom manufacturing of vehicle parts (services
identified in the Application) and custom installation of those parts (services
identified in the cited Registration) under a single mark.
10 Office Action dated June 4, 2024, at 23-40.
11 Id. at 27.
12 Id. at 33-38.

Serial No. 98217661
- 11 -
There is also evidence that Porsche provides customization services for their own
vehicles, and that Porsche provides the custom manufacturing and installation of the
customized parts under its Porsche trademark.13
Revolution Auto Design provides custom printing and car wrap services.14
According to its website, “Vehicle wraps are a form of vinyl graphics applied to
vehicles to change their appearance, often used for advertising or customization
purposes.”15 Revolution Auto Design manufactures the wrap (the custom
manufacturing services identified in the Application) and installs it on a vehicle (the
custom installation services identified in the cited Registration) under a single mark.
There is additional, similar evidence in the record.16 This evidence shows that
some third parties, including what appear to be local shops and at least one large
automobile manufacturer (Porsche), offer services identified in both the Application
and the cited Registration under a single mark. The evidence, therefore, supports the
Trademark Examining Attorney’s conclusion that the services are related. We find
the services are closely related and complementary, as we explained above. The
similarity and relatedness of the services makes confusion more likely.
13 Id. at 48-55.
14 Id. at 61-64.
15 Id. at 62.
16 Id. at 65-74 (Willy’s Auto offers both custom fabrication of parts and installation of those
parts).

Serial No. 98217661
- 12 -
2. The International Class 42 Services
The Application identified the following services in International Class 42:
“Engineering of vehicles, vehicle parts, and metallic structures in the nature of power
trains, dollies, and storage containers; Industrial design of vehicles, vehicle parts,
and metallic structures in the nature of power trains, dollies, and storage containers.”
We find these services are also closely related to the automobile customization,
modification, and accessory installation services identified in the cited Registration.
At a minimum, Applicant’s engineering and industrial design of vehicle parts are
complementary to Registrant’s customization of automobiles because parts used in
customization must be engineered and designed.
The same evidence we reviewed above shows that these services are also offered
by others under a single mark. The Porsche evidence, in particular, shows
engineering and industrial design of vehicles and vehicle parts, which can be installed
by Porsche. The custom design of automobile speaker enclosures and automotive
upholstery by JK Automotive Designs also includes engineering and industrial design
services and custom installation services. We find the International Class 42 services
identified in the Application also are closely related, and complementary, to the
services identified in the cited Registration. The second DuPont factor supports the
refusal as to both classes of services from the Application.
C. Trade Channels
The evidence we reviewed under the second DuPont factor is also relevant here,
because it confirms the common-sense point that custom manufacturing, engineering

Serial No. 98217661
- 13 -
and design services as to custom vehicle parts flow through the same trade channels
as custom installation services. The services are complementary—one needs custom
designed and manufactured parts to install in a vehicle being customized—and it
follows that the services flow through overlapping trade channels.
There are no limitations as to trade channels in the Application or the cited
Registration, so we must presume the services flow through the normal trade
channels for such services. Because these services are complementary, the normal
trade channels overlap.
D. Customer Care
The fourth DuPont factor considers the likely care exercised by relevant
consumers. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361 (considering “[t]he conditions under which …
sales are made, i.e. “impulse” vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing”). Applicant
argues that the customers of automobile customization services are careful and that
customized automobiles are expensive.17 Applicant points out that many of the
customized vehicles shown in the record are from brands known to be expensive,
Mercedes Benz and Lamborghini.18 There is no evidence establishing the price points
of the vehicles Applicant identifies, but even if there were, that would not matter
here. There are no limitations as to the nature of the automobiles that might receive
the customization services identified in the cited Registration.
17 6 TTABVUE 14-15.
18 Id. at 15.

Serial No. 98217661
- 14 -
We find this is a mixed market, with some consumers likely making careful
purchasing decisions and some making less careful decisions, and, as a result, we are
required to base our decision “on the least sophisticated potential purchasers.” Stone
Lion Capital Partners, 746 F.3d at 1325. We find that the “least sophisticated
potential purchasers” of Registrant’s automobile customization services likely
exercise ordinary care in making purchasing decisions, which does not materially
alter the likelihood of confusion. The fourth DuPont factor is neutral.
E. Factor Six – The Impact of Third-Party Registrations
If properly made of record, third-party registrations or evidence of third-party
uses may be relevant, in the manner of dictionary definitions, “to prove that some
segment of the [marks] has a normally understood and well recognized descriptive or
suggestive meaning, leading to the conclusion that that segment is relatively weak.”
Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See
also Jack Wolfskin, 797 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Tektronix, Inc. v. Daktronics, Inc.,
534 F.2d 915 (CCPA 1976) (even if “there is no evidence of actual use” of “third-party
registrations,” such registrations “may be given some weight to show the meaning of
a mark in the same way that dictionaries are used”). “[E]vidence of third-party
registrations is relevant to ‘show the sense in which . . . a mark is used in ordinary
parlance.’” In re Guild Mortg. Co., No. 86709944, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 17, at *10
(quoting Juice Generation, 794 F.3d at 1339 (noting that third-party use and
registrations may be used to establish how a term is understood)).

Serial No. 98217661
- 15 -
Applicant relies on internet screenshots from third-party websites to challenge
the conceptual strength of the cited mark.19 To be probative, the third-party evidence
must show some pattern of use with the same or similar services. It follows that such
evidence is only probative if it identifies the same or similar services to those found
in the cited Registration. Omaha Steaks, 908 F.3d at 1324-25 (error to rely on third-
party evidence of similar marks for dissimilar goods, as Board must focus “on goods
shown to be similar”); i.am.symbolic, 866 F.3d at 1328 (disregarding third-party
registrations for other types of goods where the proffering party had neither proven
nor explained that they were related to the goods in the cited registration).
In Omaha Steaks, the Federal Circuit explained the importance of limiting the
scope of the inquiry into third-party uses. Omaha Steaks, 908 F.3d at 1324-25. The
parties in Omaha Steaks identified “meat” as their goods, but the third-party
evidence included other foods, like popcorn and wine. Id. at 1325. Because the
identified goods were limited to meat, the court held it was error to consider other
registrations for other types of food. Id.
Most of the third-party evidence Applicant submitted shows a single screenshot
from a website and fails to adequately identify the goods or services the website owner
provides. None of the third-party evidence in the record shows “Automobile
customization, modification, and accessory installation services.”
Some of the third-party evidence shows uses that are somewhat similar or related
to the services identified in the cited Registration. Fortech Racing Components
19 6 TTABVUE 15-17.

Serial No. 98217661
- 16 -
appears to provide after-market automobile parts, and such parts might be used to
customize or modify an automobile.20 Forte’s Parts Connection sells custom parts, but
the evidence states they “provide tech support, insuring [sic] your installation goes
smoothly.”21 This use, therefore, does not show customization services, but rather
retail parts sales services, where the parts might be used in customizing an
automobile. While these are different services, they are related in some of the same
ways we found the services in the Application are related to those in the cited
Registration.
The screenshot from the FURI TEK website shows what looks like a customized
automobile, and shows some parts.22 We cannot determine from this scant evidence
whether this party offers services similar or related to those identified in the cited
Registration. For-Tech Inc. appears to be an auto repair shop, and it might do
customization work, but the evidence of record simply shows the business sign outside
a building.23 4 Tech Auto Service also appears to be an auto repair shop, but again,
this evidence fails to show a probative third-party use because there is nothing in the
evidence showing that this party offers customization services or makes customized
parts.24 Finally, fintex appears to provide coatings for use with automobiles, but the
20 Request for Reconsideration dated June 6, 2025, at 18.
21 Id. at 21.
22 Id. at 29.
23 Id. at 36.
24 Id. at 37.

Serial No. 98217661
- 17 -
evidence shows no customization services.25 The remaining uses shown by Applicant
range from a custom gun shop26 to a drill bit.27
Applicant never explains what meaning is established from his third-party
evidence, and we can find none. These uses are far too varied to establish any common
practice within the relevant industry. Indeed, none of the third-party uses identify
automobile customization services. Only a couple of the uses show what might be
custom automobile parts, but the evidence of these uses does not indicate that the
trademarks or trade names used have any particular meaning.
Furthermore, because the cited Registration is “prima facie evidence of the
validity of the registered mark,’’ see Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1057(b), we must assume that the cited mark FORTEC is inherently distinctive as
evidenced by its registration on the Principal Register without a claim of acquired
distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act. See Tea Bd. of India, No.
91118587, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 330, at *62; New Era Cap Co., Inc. v. Pro Era, LLC, No.
91216455, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *29-30. We, therefore, give the cited mark “the
normal scope of protection to which inherently distinctive marks are entitled.” Bell’s
Brewery, Inc. v. Innovation Brewing, No. 91215896, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 452, at *20.
The sixth DuPont factor is neutral.
25 Id. at 39.
26 Id. at 32.
27 Id. at 28.

Serial No. 98217661
- 18 -
F. Conclusion: Weighing the Factors
The marks are similar and the services are related. The first two DuPont factors
weigh heavily in this appeal and both factors point toward a likelihood of confusion.
The third DuPont factor also supports the refusal, while the fourth and sixth DuPont
factors are neutral. Confusion is likely.
Decision: The Section 2(d) refusal is affirmed.